This blog is written by the National Director of Together For Humanity Foundation (TFH), Rabbi Zalman Kastel. It explores contemporary social issues as these relate to an Orthodox understanding of the Torah, (the Bible) and other Jewish sources. This blog which shares the personal thoughts and journey of an Australian Jewish man is part of the bridge building work of TFH and is written for readers of many faiths and none. It often references the Sidra, the weekly Torah reading.

Friday, August 31, 2012

The individual, our rights, needs and even desires are regarded as
highly important in the modern western approach. Follow your heart, is a catch
cry. There are societies that put much more emphasis on the communal interest,
with the individual coming second. I live in both worlds. I sometimes feel
indulgent, slack and “soft” in comparison with my mother, for whom the question
seems almost never to be “what do I want?”
but instead “what is my duty?” I
wonder about the merit of sacrificing the needs/wants of the individual for the
greater good and the merit of submission to a higher authority. Yet I also
worry about the harshness some might employ in controlling the indulgent “inner
child”. This is starkly symbolised by the proposition of an execution of the
“rebellious son” by his parents handing him over to the community to kill him
by pelting him with stones.

Rebellion, a Capital Offence?

Let us start with the Torah’s text about the “execution of a rebellious son”. The Torah states: “If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or
his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, his
father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of
his city, and to the gate of his place.

And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours
is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a (wine) guzzler."

And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and
he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel
will listen and fear”[i]
.

This law is generally assumed to be a theoretical one that has never
been implemented and will never be acted on[ii].
Even in its theoretical form it is completely at the parents’ discretion, which
is one more argument for its impracticability[iii].
Still this law exists on the books as a moral teaching, which I find difficult
to live with. What might this teaching
be?

More important than love?

Several possibilities are suggested. One our love of God overriding the
“strongest love in the world, that
between a father and son, or that of a mother to her son, in spite of this when
the parents see their son straying to a bad way, it is forbidden for them to
have mercy for him and they must restrain their love (for their son) out of
love of God and to bring their son to the house of stoning, their love should
be like the love of our father Abraham (Upon him be peace) who held back his
love and tied up his son on the altar[iv]”.

This interpretation is disturbing in how far it suggests this should be
taken. I wonder about a more general message about transcending our own inner
world and “what feels right” to us to, not necessarily to act against our own
conscience, but simply to do things that don’t resonate for us out of
compliance with “the will of God”, or fall in behind the agendas and priorities
of others in our communities. It is frustrating to watch people fixate on their
personal vision who are unwilling to “take their eye of the ball” for long
enough to give anyone else any assistance.

Discipline not Indulgence

Other interpretations focus on various aspects of the rebellious son.
The word “Moreh” which means rebellious is the same word for teach or show. “He wants to teach his father and mother
knowledge, that his way is the right way, and this is the way of youth to
imagine that they are the wise ones and they know how to conduct themselves…the
son wants to educate his father[v]”.
Gluttony is defined as involved theft of money[vi],
which is then used to buy wine and meat eaten half raw[vii]
in bad company outside the family home. The concern here is with excessive
indulgence which is seen as corrupting. It is contrasted with a custom that
when one hosts guests one should leave some space empty of plates[viii].Of course this can be taken too far, we must
remember that “stoning the indulgent” child is a threat that is never to be
carried out!” There are so many delightful things in the world that God has
created for our enjoyment as long as we partake of it in moderation.

There is also the danger that in being overly harsh toward ourselves we
become hardened and cruel. A lovely story involves a Rabbi disapproving of a
rich man eating very simply, hard bread etc. The Rabbi told him to eat steak
and drink fine wine. This way he will recognise that the poor at least deserve
bread and other basics, if he only gives himself stale bread, what crumbs will
he offer the needy?

Submission to “The Official
Position”

In contrast to the “out of control rebellious youth”, there is the case
of the rebellious elder[ix].
This is a top level scholar who having arrived at a different conclusion to the
majority of the highest religious court called the Sanhedrin, dares to defy the
official ruling and guides people to behave in accordance with his own view.
This is so that there not be “many Torah’s”, and serves to unify the Jews in their
observance of the Torah.

The requirement to submit to the official position played out in the
poignant story of Rabbi Joshua who believed that the holiest day of the year,
Yom Kippur, was on a different day to the one decided on by the majority and
the president of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Gamliel. Rabbi Gamliel demanded the Rabbi
Joshua publicly demonstrate his acceptance of the ruling by appearing before
him with his staff and money bag. This would be violation of the holy day
according to Rabbi Joshua’s opinion[x].
This must have been very hard for Rabbi Joshua. This incident and the
disrespect to Rabbi Joshua later contributed to Rabbi Gamliel being deposed as
president. There is a balance one must find here.

Judging texts and Individual
Dignity

This material is also useful when we are tempted to judge the sacred
texts of other faiths, not to simply read a text without considering the
traditional interpretations. It is also important to consider seemingly
unrelated teachings to gain a broader perspective. Reading the examples above
could create the impression that the Torah is concerned only with the “greater
good” and not with the rights of the individual, or even the obligations we
have toward others. This is not true, of course. I am struck by the symbolism
of the Torah’s command to a creditor seeking an object as surety for a loan
from a poor person, “In the outside, you
will stand[xi]”!
The creditor has a right to demand an object from the borrower, but he dare not
violate the sanctity of the vulnerable man’s home. According to one traditional
translation, the lender is actually instructed to stand in the marketplace
where the borrower will meet him with an object of surety of his choosing[xii].
Even a court officer is forbidden to enter the home of the borrower[xiii]!

Conclusion

There are several pathways to virtue. One relates to prioritising God and
this has led many to do beautiful things. At the same time, there are many
atheists who are highly ethical decent people. Another valuable path involves
moderation, and still there are highly disciplined, dieting exercising
self-centred even cruel people. In contrast there are some “go with the flow”,
sensual ice cream eating people who are generous and loving. Jews are now in
the month of reflection, Elul, leading up to the Day of Atonement. There is a
lot to think about, including how gentle to be or not be with our indulgent
inner child.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Australians are witnessing a dramatic shift in refugee policy. Only a
few years back a new Labour Government emphatically rejected the previous
government’s strategy of sending Asylum seekers to a third country, Nauru. In a
matter of days Legislation is being enacted to allow this practice to resume. It
has not been an easy decision, clearly some government MPs have reservations. Refugee
advocates see this as a step away from a compassionate approach. Some have
cried racism and prejudice, claiming that if those seeking entry to Australia
were white farmers from Zimbabwe there would be a much more welcoming stance. Others
vehemently reject any accusation of prejudice.

There has also been some discussion about an article by a member of the
Jewish community about the need to curb our compassion (not the authors choice of title), or redirect it from
those on the boats to other refugees waiting in queues. What contribution does my
tradition bring to this debate?

The Stranger

Perhaps the most repeated commandment in the Torah is to love the
stranger, often combined with a reminder of Jews’ experience of being an
outsider in Egypt where we were made slaves. We must be concerned with the
welfare of those who are vulnerable and are seen as outsiders/strangers.

To Curb and Not to Curb
Compassion

In our Torah reading this week we have instructions both to
curb our compassion and not to do so depending on the circumstances. We are taught to curb our compassion in
cases involving a person who leads others astray by promoting idol worship[i]
and a Murder[ii].
Both cases involve extremely serious threats to the community, the latter to
life itself and the former to spiritual life. In the case of a vulnerable
person we are told “you
shall not harden your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your needy
brother[iii]”.

Deserving

Some have portrayed those arriving on our shores in boats as “queue
jumpers”. Others have argued that because there are some Muslims who are
extremists, this should influence attitudes to Muslim arrivals in general. Generalising
from a tiny minority to a huge majority is neither reasonable nor just.

I don’t think it is racist to argue like my Darwin taxi driver did
yesterday; that Australia’s charity should be prioritised to benefit people
living in Australian, i.e. Aboriginal people living in dire poverty or that we
should be equitable in our treatment of refugees whether they are in queues or
boats. We are taught that in the administration of justice we must not be swept
away by emotion[iv], instead we
must be fair to all. Fairness includes being alert to unconscious prejudices
that many of us still have in spite of our tolerant or accepting intentions.

A teacher in Adelaide reflected last week on the fact that many
Australians believed initial reports 10 years ago about asylum seekers that
“those people” threw their children overboard. Some of us were prepared to
believe that the people on these boats were so different from us that they lacked
the fundamental human quality of parental love.

It is tempting when refusing to assist vulnerable people to portray
them as undeserving. We are warned against this by our sages. The Torah states,
“Beware, lest…
your eyes will look in an evil way on your needy brother and not give him[v]”. At the simple
level it means having an ungenerous perspective, but it is also interpreted to
mean that in our reluctance to help a needy person we must not ascribe evil
characteristics to the person seeking our help to justify our refusal[vi].

Changed Circumstances Justifies
a change of policy

The home affairs minister, Jason Clare, argued on Radio this week that
the Labour Government was justified in changing its position because the
reality had changed. 600 people had died while trying to gain asylum in
Australia by travelling here by boat. The principle is sound, when a law causes
significant harm, it is quite reasonable to review the law. God made a law that
had the potential to lead to a situation where “there would not be any poor person among you[vii]”.
This would be the result of a system of Jubilee and Sabbatical years, in which
poverty would not entrench itself[viii]. Every
seven years all debts would be cancelled[ix]
and poor people who sold themselves into slavery would go free, in the Jubilee
they would regain ownership of any property they sold.

The Torah makes it clear that the blessed state of a poverty free
society is conditional on obedience of the law[x].
This ambitious scheme was dependent on people transcending their natural
self-interest. Some Twelve hundred years later, it became clear that the result
of the law was to harm the very people it sought to help. The sage Hillel
observed that in the lead up to the Sabbatical year people stop lending money
to each other. He found a way around the law, essentially allowing lenders to
transfer their loans to the court[xi].

The application of the principle of changed circumstances to laws about
Asylum seekers is less straight forward. In both cases well-intentioned laws
are confronted with reality tests and found wanting. However, in the case of
loans, the law was a direct and unavoidable cause of hardship. There was no
other option but to give up the idealistic law. In the case of Asylum seekers, it
could be argued that there is another option; we can choose to allow people to
come here by plane which apparently is half the cost that they are charged by
the operators of these boats. Others would argue that this is not viable as
there are simply far more people seeking to come to Australia than it could
accommodate.

Justice

More broadly we are meant to see our assistance to those in needs not
as charity but as an act of justice[xii]. The Torah
states that if a poor person will cry out to God because he cannot get a loan
in the lead up to the seventh year[xiii], this
will be considered a sin for the person refusing to lend him money[xiv].
This is because the person who has the ability to give is like a king’s bursar,
entrusted by the king to distribute funds. When the poor person cries out it is
like a citizen complaining to the king about the bursar withholding funds that
the king had allocated for him[xv].It has also been taught that the reason
that one person is poor is order to create an opportunity for another to have
the merit of providing for him/her[xvi]. Our
decision to share our resources with an individual knocking on our door, either
of our house, our embassy or in a leaky boat needs to be informed by the
knowledge that ultimately all our wealth is not absolutely ours but has been
given to us in trust, perhaps to share with that exact needy person.

Further Considerations

On one hand there is something beautiful about the way no expense is
spared when someone is in trouble, such as some adventurer in a row boat on the
high seas who lost her paddle. Yet, questions about equitable use of limited
public funds sometimes need to be asked. Questions also need to be asked about
the justice of treating some people harshly in order to deter other people from
risking their lives. Australia will be bringing in plain packaging for
cigarettes to discourage smoking, it could be argued that if we applied the
same logic being used in the asylum seeker debate to smokers, we would be
locking them up to help deter others from smoking.

There is more that can be said about all this. We are taught, it is not for you to complete the work, but
you are not free to desist from it.

Closing with hope that fewer people have the need to flee their home
countries, and that wise, compassionate and equitable response are found to
respond to those who choose to flee or migrate for whatever reason. Until then,
let us never lose sight of humanity, both our own and those of all our fellow
humans.

[vi] R. Shmelkeh of Nikolsburg, a
variation of this also appears in Yalkut Hagershuni that reinterprets the phase
in genesis 18:20 about the city of Sodom, “their sin is very grievance” which
literally is understood as the words of God about the inhabitants of Sodom, but
could also be interpreted as the words of the Sodomites about poor visitors to
their city which justified their inhospitable practices. Both cited in
Nachshoni, Y., (1989) Studies in the Weekly Parshah, Mesorah Publications,
Brooklyn New York, p.1280

[ix] Deuteronomy 15:2, this
idealistic conception of the cancelation of debts is hard to reconcile with the
restriction of this amnesty only to Jews. One more practical explanation of the
law by Chizkuni ties it to the ability to pay in normal years by selling crops.
Jewish farmers were forbidden to sell crops in the Sabbatical year and
therefore did not have the ability to pay. Non-Jewish farmers were not
obligated to leave their land fallow which meant that they could pay their
debts. According to this explanation Jewish craftsmen should have to pay, while
non-Jewish unemployed people, especially farm hands who might find work on
Jewish farms that would now be directly impacted by the Sabbatical year should
be freed from their debts. This is not the case. Perhaps the counter argument
would be that the law is formulated according to the majority. What I like
about this argument is that it implies a rejection of discrimination by seeking
a technical justification. Of course it would suit me better if the law treated
both Jews and non-Jews equally.

[xi] Sifrei, the technical fix
interprets the words “do not press your brother for payment” as applying only
to a direct transaction between the lender and “his brother”, it does not
explicitly restrict the court from collecting debts, so by transferring the loan
to the court collection becomes permissible.

[xii] This point is discussed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in
Likutei Sichot, based on the Hebrew word for giving to the poor being Tzedakah
which is related to the word Tzedek/justice.

[xiii] During the 7th year all loans were
cancelled in Biblical times. This led lenders to be reluctant to lend as the year approached.

Friday, August 10, 2012

from http://schaver.com/?m=200602&paged=2
used under creative commons license

Fear
Fuelled Flight

Fear is both
a valuable tool in the quest for virtue as well a destructive force. Yesterday
I needed to make an argument about diversity education policy in front of the
Tasmanian Minister for Education and my fear of getting it wrong made it hard
for me to prepare my speech. Yet earlier
this week I heard Australian Olympic Gold medallist Sally Pearson talk about being
afraid while she competed. The mystics taught that love and fear are the two
wings that make good deed soar to the heavens[i].

Motivated by Fear?

Two heroic
women in the Torah displayed a combination of fearlessness and fear. When the
Pharaoh demands that the Jewish midwives Shifra and Puah kill Jewish baby boys
they defy him. The Torah explains their motivation. “The midwives, however, feared God; so they
did not do as the king of Egypt had spoken to them, but they enabled the boys
to live[ii]”. In a study of business success and failure, one
characteristic of great business leaders was their fear that something could go
wrong[iii].

I have often been cautious in my bridge building work, afraid
of alienating people I was trying to engage. I have a sense that being bolder
at times is needed, yet I think the fearful instinct (If I can call it that) is
also a valuable tool and the challenge is to know which to use when. My
Liberian Muslim friend, Mohamed Dukuly told me a saying once from his people
about keeping quiet 9 times so that one can have the opportunity to speak the
tenth time. I think there is wisdom in that.

Fear as a core of worship

The nature
of fear advocated by the Torah is contested[iv],
but its importance is not. After Moses reminds the Israelites about their past
great failure when they worshipped a golden calf he rhetorically asks them “And now, O Israel, what
does the Lord, your God, demand of you?” His answer is “Only to fear the Lord, your God, to walk in
all His ways and to love Him, and to worship the Lord, your God, with all your
heart and with all your soul[v]”.

Messing up the little
things

The Midrash
has a touching portrayal of King David’s fear. There are some commandments that
people are not careful with and “throw them under their heels[vi]”
(or trample on them) as these are seen as “light” or low importance. David says “master of the world, I am not afraid (of
transgressing) the “heavy” commandments of the Torah, as they are significant.
What am I afraid of, the light commandments, perhaps I have transgressed one of
them. Perhaps I did or did not do (what I should) as these are light…master of
the world because the matters of the Torah as sweeter than honey I might have
been dismissive of them…[vii]”.

We can be
motivated by love and inspiration to do important tasks, but it is fear that
helps us attend to the boring details that are important in the long run. “One who is afraid will not fail to do even
one 1000th of his obligations because of his fear[viii]”.
This is related[ix]
to the verse above, “Now”, as a
beginner in worship, “what does God ask
of you but to fear him” which is a foundational step, that will later lead you
to “going in all his ways, to love him
and serve him will all your heart and all your soul”.

Conclusion

In the end I
think the speech in front of the minister achieved its purpose, he seemed to
accept the merits of my argument. My love for the principle of respect for all
people combined with my fear of saying the wrong thing, helped me
speak from the heart and allowed the message to fly.

[vi] This is based on a play on words, the
Torah (Deuteronomy 7:12) states “And it will be, because you will heed these
ordinances and keep them and perform, that the Lord, your God, will keep for
you the covenant and the kindness that He swore to your forefathers”. The Hebrew word that is translated as
“because” is Ekev עֵקֶב which can also mean a heel and it interpreted as it will be
if you obey the commandments that might otherwise end up under your heel, you
will be rewarded…

Friday, August 3, 2012

I am sitting on a plane from Perth to Sydney feeling grateful for an
amazing week. On Sunday evening, for the first time in the 10 years of seeking
to build a partnership between Muslims, Jews and Christians I co-hosted a
program in a Mosque with a Shia Muslim Imam. It was a triumph. After so many
years needing to respond to the doubts of others, and even my own doubts, about
how strongly Muslims favoured this partnership idea we had 600 Muslims show up
to an event co-hosted by a Jewish-Christian-Muslim organisation.I also ran professional development days for
over 100 educators in Adelaide and Perth. Walked on a beautiful Indian Ocean coast
beach at 5:30 this morning and heard nothing but the waves. Yet, just outside
this wonderful silver lining is a little cloud called “Compromise”.

Don’t mention the war

The context is important. The situation in the land called both Israel
and Palestine is extremely important. The issues are matters of life and death,
terrible loss, humiliation, fear, justice and peace, and a lot more that is
beyond the scope of this post. At the same time, there are significant
prejudices against both Muslims and Jews in Australia and there is an
opportunity to address this prejudice by working together on diversity in
general. The event on Sunday night chose to focus on the latter issue rather
than the former. It included speakers from various faiths, MP’s and quite a few
Jewish, Christian and other non-Muslim guests. Being the end of a major Jewish
fast day (9th of Av) as well as an evening during Ramadan both Jews
and Muslims present broke their fasts together after dark sitting on the floor
together. Participants loved it, the vibe in the room and the chatter on
Facebook afterwards was overflowing with positive sentiment.

Socialising with Evil

People on both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict have been concerned
about interacting with people they saw as justifying evil. One accomplished
writer wrote this week about an event like ours (or perhaps it was ours) that
she felt compromised by sharing polite conversation with people who advocated
on behalf of one side in the conflict. Others chose to avoid the event
altogether rather than be in the company or imply approval of people whose
views they saw as abhorrent.

While I personally would prioritise the benefit that could be created
in Australia through interaction, there are people I would not be prepared to
associate with either. I respect the view of people who don’t want to
compromise themselves by associating with those they see as evil[i]
and appreciate they might have different views to me about who should be
avoided.

Heartbreaking Compromise

The theme of Compromise appears in our Torah reading this week, when God
warns the people of Israel that if they develop hubris[ii]
“and become religiously corrupted,
creating an image… then God will scatter you among the nations and there you
will worship Gods which are the handiwork of people, wood and stone[iii]”.
This outcome is a very severe punishment for a people who passionately
advocated Monotheism.“As a result of their terrible suffering,
many Jews, the Torah foretells, will be brought to forced conversions,
worshipping idols but knowing full well that they are made of wood and
stone…this would constitute the climax of their suffering – to be inwardly
aware of their true faith and have to pay lip service to idols…[iv]”.
This is a powerful articulation of the soul destroying nature of being
compromised.

Intention

The road to hell might be paved with good intentions, yet I think
intent still matters. When a person kills another by accident, the Torah is
concerned about whether or not the killer hated the victim[v].
If there was no hatred the killer can escape to the safety of a city of refuge.
I think the sincerity of people who hold views other find abhorrent should be
taken into account. In some cases it is not a callous indifference to the
rights of the victims but a belief in a set of arguments that mitigate the
severity of the harmful acts of those they support.

Impact

It would seem to me that the benefits of interaction outweigh the downside.
If things will ever change, surely interaction can also help that happen.
Certainly in my experience my view of the conflict has become far better
informed, my understanding of and concern about the perspective of the other
side greatly developed through interaction.

Inspiration from people in the
conflict itself

Another factor to consider is the amazing example set by people living
with the conflict. Most inspiringly, there is a group of bereaved parents from
both sides of the conflict who come together. If they can do it there, surely people
thousands of kilometres away can also interact.

Compromise as a positive

I think we also need to consider the positive connotations of the word ‘compromise’
which can be very helpful in creating peace. We are taught, “A person should always be as soft
as a reed and
not as hard
as a cedar[vi]”. The Torah teaches
us to “do that which is upright and good
in eyes of God[vii]”.
This interpreted as advocating for going beyond the letter of the law and
insisting on rights, instead going with compromise[viii].

[i]
This principle is reflected in the verse, “one
who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to
the Lord (Proverbs 17:15). In Jewish law this principle is expressed in the
prohibition against flattery of evil doers (Chanifa). If someone violates
certain prohibitions it is forbidden to give them honour or do anything that
might imply approval of their deeds. An example of this is a wealthy donor who
is involved in domestic violence. An organisation that would give him honour at
their fundraising event would be in breach of the laws against
Chanifa/flattery. (Ehrman Rabbi A (2002), the Laws of Interpersonal Relations,
Artscroll Brooklyn, NY, based on Shaarei Teshuva 3:187-199). One who justifies
the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord.

[ii]
The word in the text is “vnoshantem” which is translated by Unkelus as “you
will become old in the land” which interpreted by Daat Zekainim Mbaalei
Hatosafot as “you will say we have already been settled in the land, there will
not be more anger (from God) or destruction, I hereby set heaven and earth
which last for ever as witnesses against you that you will indeed be destroyed

About Me

I am active in educational efforts to counter prejudice, particularly when linked to religion, as National Director of Together For Humanity Foundation. I am also a Rabbi, teaching Bar Mitzvah students, adults, conducting weddings and involved in other aspects religious leadership. I was ordained with Semicha from the Lubavitch Yeshiva (770) in New York, studied Torah in London, Brooklyn and Sydney. Completed a graduate Diploma in Education at the University of New England.